Police must obtain a warrant before accessing emails stored by internet service providers, a federal appeals court has ruled in a landmark decision that also struck down part of a 1986 law that allows warrantless interception of some digital data.
The unanimous decision (PDF), from a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court …

COMMENTS

Nice

“Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication, it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection,” the ruling stated. “Email is the technological scion of tangible mail, and it plays an indispensable part in the Information Age.”

@AC

@AC @Lars

One area where the US is definitely ahead of the UK

Over here the Police and about half a million others in local government and private companies can go snooping through your data and email without ever needing to explain to a judge why that is necessary. This was enshrined in the deliberately mis-named "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act" which was, of course, a complete deregulation of official and unofficial snooping on the population.

Over here the Police, government and jumped up wheel clampers can go on any fishing expedition they like regarding a private individual. At least in the US there is some rational understanding of the need to regulate the powers of state. I am sure this judge will get replaced with one who will vote more in line with the President soon enough though.

I'm staggered

"mis-named"?

Though I agree with your post, I don't think RIPA is really a misnomer. It does exactly what it says. The sneaky thing, as with much of the regulatory legislation passed in recent times, is that it is put forward as a means of controlling abusive behaviour, but in fact it re-defines the behaviour as OK in certain circumstances. And then goes on to extend that privilege to any gov organisation that wants it (it seems).

The yanks seem to have been able to define rights against official abuse in such a way that it actually works - so good for them.

It's a bit of a mish-mash.

Once, before the act, I was reading a rather odd handwritten letter from someone claiming to be an accountant. So I went out in my lunch hour and walked past his "business address" to find it was a local authority day centre for the elderly.

Technically that was an investigation that I would have needed permission for post RIPA.

Even penis-pill-pushing scum are good for something, I suppose.

@One area where the US is definitely ahead of the UK

Of course certain 3 letter agencies will still be able to do it secretly, or in the name of national security, or will just 'ask nicely' and then forgive the ISPs later, or will just get a warrant that covers such a broad range of people that it's pointless

That's always the case.

Ah the universal failure of understanding from liberals

The First amendment does not "Allow" anything, it is a prohibition on government interfere with a natural right of man with which he was endowed by his Creator as more famously set forth in another document before the current occupant of the White House started editing it in speeches. It also does not allow free speech to be controlled anywhere, that is a distortion caused by activist liberal judges intent on perfecting the morality of man by substituting their own prejudices for established law. In this case for specifically protecting certain people from hearing things which might make them uncomfortable.

Now as to the ruling itself, I think it is ultimately defensible, though not quite so obviously as some people think it ought to be. The key element here is that in general email communications are not encrypted so it is more akin to sending a postcard than a letter. Anyone involved in the handling of the email (postcard) can read what is written on it. If an officer of the law happens to see a postcard while it is being handled in the normal process of delivery, it is not subject to 4th amendment protection because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The catch is that law enforcement has essentially demanded to search the post office to see the post cards, which itself does require a search warrant.

Re: Amendments? So what?

Sudden outbreak of common sense...

It is probably the blood still to high in my coffee subsystem. What time is it? Aa... before the 4th espresso, so I am probably having hallucinations. Such outbreaks of common sense have no place in the modern world.

thanks Ian

My 2 cents

...no impact. There is now a prerequisite for a warrant before law enforcement can legally request and obtain e-mail, but the gap that this addresses (an interpretation of an arcane law that implied a loophole where a warrant was not necessary for data older than 180 days IIRC) is not commonly (ever) used in what would normally be described as an e-discovery situation AFAIK. Legal hold and discovery orders issued by the courts should not be impacted at all by this ruling.

That said, it has been an interesting week in e-mail. I ran across a story on Ars about an employee who was convicted for wiretapping for sneaking a forward/copy rule into his boss' inbox so he could read all her mail. To me, that one is much more concerning - if an employee spying on another employee's mail is considered a criminal matter then what happens to investigations that are not backed up by a court order?

An excellent decision -

my organ grew a couple of centimetres while reading the article ! However, it may well shrink again if and when (more likely the latter) the matter comes before the US Supreme Court, which in its present gestalt has shown itself to be no friend of privacy or free speech (unless we are referring to the so-called right of corporations to finance political campaigns - otherwise known as buying politicians - which the Court holds to be unlimited)....

This is sadly true...

Can I be the first to say...

> The ruling came in the criminal case of one Steven Warshak, a penis-enhancement marketer who was convicted of multiple fraud charges. In the course of the investigation, prosecutors accessed thousands of Warshak's emails without a warrant.

Presumably "accessed thousands of Warshak's emails without a warrant" simply means that they turned off their spam filter for 10 minutes?